McCain Hits Obama on Cuba Diplomacy

McCain Hits Obama on Cuba Diplomacy Republican presidential candidate John McCain marks Cuban Independence Day on Tuesday with a fresh slap at Democratic front-runner Barack Obama for a pledge to meet Cuba's leader if elected in November. Obama's vow to hold direct talks, without preconditions, with leaders of countries hostile to the United States, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba, has given McCain a broad opening to attack Obama over foreign policy.

<b>Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama’s campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows.</b> (from The Hill)I don't think it's that big a deal that he has lobbyists on his staff, I just don't think you can say it's only something McCain does. Even if he is following the policy he set forth of not having current lobbyists, Obama is not free of ties to lobbyists.

Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama’s campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows. (from The Hill)
I don't think it's that big a deal that he has lobbyists on his staff, I just don't think you can say it's only something McCain does. Even if he is following the policy he set forth of not having current lobbyists, Obama is not free of ties to lobbyists.

Obama's policy has always been that he wasn't going to have current lobbiers on his staff. If there was just that one 2 week overlap I understand, but if he has current lobbiests on his team, I think it is worth investigating. In regards to the Cuba issue, Richardson said this:"Richardson added, "John McCain doesn't understand as well as Senator Obama and I do how the Castro regime works. John McCain -- like George Bush -- is afraid to talk to bad guys. He feels safer pretending to talk tough by hiding from them. Unfortunately ordinary people will pay for his lack of diplomatic skill. This is the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has failed all over the world, and it has failed to promote change in Cuba. I have successfully negotiated with Castro and many like him, and I know that Barack has the judgment and experience to nudge the Cubans toward a better future."

Obama's policy has always been that he wasn't going to have current lobbiers on his staff. If there was just that one 2 week overlap I understand, but if he has current lobbiests on his team, I think it is worth investigating.
In regards to the Cuba issue, Richardson said this:
"Richardson added, "John McCain doesn't understand as well as Senator Obama and I do how the Castro regime works. John McCain -- like George Bush -- is afraid to talk to bad guys. He feels safer pretending to talk tough by hiding from them. Unfortunately ordinary people will pay for his lack of diplomatic skill. This is the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has failed all over the world, and it has failed to promote change in Cuba. I have successfully negotiated with Castro and many like him, and I know that Barack has the judgment and experience to nudge the Cubans toward a better future."

From a Slate article:
Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.
I'm not by any means saying that people shouldn't have lobbyists working on their campaigns. Lobbyists are well-connected and tend to know a lot about specific issues. I am just saying that there are lobbyists on both sides in this campaign. (Or should I say all sides, including Clinton's.)

From a Slate article:<b>Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.</b>I'm not by any means saying that people shouldn't have lobbyists working on their campaigns. Lobbyists are well-connected and tend to know a lot about specific issues. I am just saying that there are lobbyists on both sides in this campaign. (Or should I say all sides, including Clinton's.)

Here's just one sentence from the article:
Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama’s campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse.
Others are listed as well.

Here's just one sentence from the article:<b>Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama’s campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse.</b>Others are listed as well.

Actually, it's untrue that the media would be all over it if Obama had lobbyists on his staff. I found several articles, with best one being posted on The Hill, that cite lobbyists who were being paid by corporations at the same time they were being paid by Obama.

"I would like to learn more, but US sources don't think international agreements about nuclear power are important, I guess."
Please stop with this obscure, irrelevant information - I am busy trying to figure out if Obama is a Muslim and why he and his reverend hate America!

"I would like to learn more, but US sources don't think international agreements about nuclear power are important, I guess."Please stop with this obscure, irrelevant information - I am busy trying to figure out if Obama is a Muslim and why he and his reverend hate America!

One more thing I just read about international relations...Bush was just in Saudi Arabia last Friday to try and get help from the Saudi government to help us with gas prices. They refused to help us more. However...Bush signed some agreements with them. <b> One is that the US will assist them in developing civilian nuclear power </b>. Another agreement promises the US to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts, and "other services as needed". I find it pretty shocking that I am not hearing more about this! I found this on a pretty obscure international news site. I would like to learn more, but US sources don't think international agreements about nuclear power are important, I guess.

One more thing I just read about international relations...
Bush was just in Saudi Arabia last Friday to try and get help from the Saudi government to help us with gas prices. They refused to help us more.
However...
Bush signed some agreements with them. One is that the US will assist them in developing civilian nuclear power . Another agreement promises the US to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts, and "other services as needed".
I find it pretty shocking that I am not hearing more about this! I found this on a pretty obscure international news site. I would like to learn more, but US sources don't think international agreements about nuclear power are important, I guess.

"It is so incredibly idiotic to think that by ignoring someone they will magically do what you want."
Exactly!
You also make really good points about the balance of the Middle East before the war, and how their regional tension is a great motivator for the actions these countries take.
"I find it absolutely mind boggling that no one considered that maybe Sadam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs."
Isn't it scary when we take military action based on machismo and bragging?

"It is so incredibly idiotic to think that by ignoring someone they will magically do what you want."Exactly!You also make really good points about the balance of the Middle East before the war, and how their regional tension is a great motivator for the actions these countries take. "I find it absolutely mind boggling that no one considered that maybe Sadam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs."Isn't it scary when we take military action based on machismo and bragging?

The US seems to think that we are right no matter what. That there can't possibly be any circumstances under which we could be wrong. For example, I find it absolutely mind boggling that no one considered that maybe Sadam wanted Iran to think he had WMDs. Prior to the US invastion Iran was Iraq's biggest threat...you know that long war they fought in the 80s and the continuing hostility. When you look at Iran now, they are surrounded by nuclear Pakistan, nuclear India, nuclear China, not mention immense unrest in Afghanistan and Iraq. If I was in charge of Iran I'd sure as hell be trying to fortify myself.

Ahmadenijad is a tool (in more ways then one) the Bush administration knows and uses him and elevates his status and power to elevate his use. They use him for fear, it works out perfectly because the more important we make him seem the scarier he is, and the Bush administration knows he's a whack job, they know he is like that kid in class who can't control himself, so if you pick on him and hit the right buttons he will act go nuts and you and your friends can show everyone what a psycho he is.I think its common sense that most deviants act out when they want to get something across an no one will listen, their reaction to no one listening is always to act out in a way where it is harder for them to be ignored. We can listen and still say "NO" and that way we can have a lot more allies one our side when we decide to take action after listening and saying no (sorry, but Poland doesn't cut it) - when we don't listen we are only making matters worse for ourselves, putting our people in troops in danger of people who want to make a point and putting out powers in danger by not showing potential allies that we have exhausted all other means and military action is necessary.

Ahmadenijad is a tool (in more ways then one) the Bush administration knows and uses him and elevates his status and power to elevate his use. They use him for fear, it works out perfectly because the more important we make him seem the scarier he is, and the Bush administration knows he's a whack job, they know he is like that kid in class who can't control himself, so if you pick on him and hit the right buttons he will act go nuts and you and your friends can show everyone what a psycho he is.
I think its common sense that most deviants act out when they want to get something across an no one will listen, their reaction to no one listening is always to act out in a way where it is harder for them to be ignored. We can listen and still say "NO" and that way we can have a lot more allies one our side when we decide to take action after listening and saying no (sorry, but Poland doesn't cut it) - when we don't listen we are only making matters worse for ourselves, putting our people in troops in danger of people who want to make a point and putting out powers in danger by not showing potential allies that we have exhausted all other means and military action is necessary.

This is exactly why I've begun liking Obama so much: his approach to foreign policy. It is so incredibly idiotic to think that by ignoring someone they will magically do what you want. The foreign policy that says to ignore these "rogue, Axis of Evil" countries is the foreign policy of fantasy land. And as mentioned above, Ahmadenijad has far less power than we give him credit for. Why the Bush administration and Republican party elevate him to a status he does not have is beyond me...other than they really want to start war in Iran. Look how much good our approach did in Cuba. I think it is so important to open the door to them and find some common ground especially now that Raul Castro has taken positive steps.

That is a GREAT quote from Baker! We need to make progress in the world. This isn't just a political game, there are real consequences of our actions. We NEED to make political progress with these nations, and Baker is right, talking to them is not a reward. It is information gathering.

Also, the DCI Group, the company that Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport work with, once worked for the military junta in Myanmar according to the Wall Street Journal (the one that oppressed opposition in Berma and is denying aid to cyclone victims). If Obama had lobbiests in top positions on his campaign with these types of ties, the media would be all over it. The double standard is appauling.